Which religion is closest to Islam?

[snakelegs]

i don't think there is really a conflict here.

Notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believe Uzayr is the son of God, but the Qur'an is very precise in saying that the Jews say Uzayr is the son of God. Thus, it cannot be a contradiction in any way since the Qur'an is only responding to the verbal proclamation of a group of Jews!

it is quite possible that some jews in madinah said that. it is still not mainstream jewish belief and in my opinion, it is incorrect to regard jews as polytheistic based on this.
jews are as fiercely monotheistic as muslims.

 

[thirdwatch512]

I voted other. I think' Islam has alot of similarities with Baha'is. Unity under one God seems to be the common thread running through both.

I disagree, especially concerning fiqh(Islamic Jurisprudence). For example, Baha'is have no problem with free mixing of the genders, whereas muslims(unfortunetely) have a major problem with men and women interacting. Baha'is have no problems with dogs, Muslims do. Baha'is are against homosexuality, but do not wish death. They do not believe in hell either.

Some Jews at the time did see Uzair as son of god. This site is where I learned that from:
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm

this site is doing nothing but speculating. They are showing an APOCRYPHAL book of the Bible(meaning one that is not even in the jewish canon), and even then they are only speculating. I have read this apocryphal book, and no where does it say Ezra is the son of God. they are only speculating that since X happened, perhaps they think Y. It is wishful thinking on their part, especially when we know that Jews have never supported the ideal of a "Son of God", especially about Ezra! ezra was merely a scribe and a leader who helped the Jews after the Babylonian exile, with Nehemiah and others.

The Qu'ran does not say "some Jews"... It leaves out the important adjective of "some!"!! Yet in surah 2:146, it says "some" when speaking about the people of the book! "The people of the Book know this as they know their own sons; but some of them conceal the truth which they themselves know. " the word in arabic is "فَرِيق" which literally means "team" which in arabic is a way of saying some of them. So why is it not used when referring to the Jews and the son of God? Why does it not say "SOME Jews"("فَرِيق هَادُواْ")?? Instead it says just the noun, intending that ALL believe that. Not only that, but it also says that the Christians believe Jesus is the son of God in the same verse, which is true. So if it is saying that about Christians, then it must also be saying that about the Jews.

Error!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jayda, this is when i'll explain to you what the Islamic history sciences are. Their not like the basic history books which have a mention of how the author views history. Guyabano, this might come in useful for you too.


What happens is this;

There is one man, for example - Tom.


Tom is living in the presence of some people. He knows the customs of the people living in his town.

Tom tells his student (Jerry) that the people in his town used to say "Hooray" whenever they got happy.


Tom - Jerry [are in the chain.]


Jerry records this information and tells his students (including a student called Bob) in his religious talks that he heard from Tom (his teacher) that the people said hooray whenever they were happy.



Tom - Jerry - Bob [are in the chain.]


Bob tells his student (William) in a religious talk the same story.


Tom - Jerry - Bob - William.



Rob is a historian. He doesn't write history himself, he merely records it. He hears from William that this is what he heard from William, and he mentions all the people in the chain all the way uptill Tom.



Then the narrators in the chain are studied for their trustworthiness, the strength of their memory, and whether they had lied or decieved others in their lives [during their lives, there would be biographers who would record the lives of the narrators.]


If the chain is authentic, with all the narrators trustworthy - it's like Rob heard it directly off Tom. So it is an authentic narration.
​

This is exactly how Imam Al-Tabari collected history. Our Islamic history is recorded this way, since over 1400years ago. Imam Al Tabari didn't live too long ago after the Prophet, so maybe about 7 people might have been in his chains of narrations in his history collection.





Regards.

Do you know what they call that type of "science" in a courtroom? Hearsay.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Some Jews at the time did see Uzair as son of god. This site is where I learned that from:
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm

Wow!! It's an Islamic site. Imagine that. Please find a Jewish site, and then maybe I'll accept the testimony.

 

[- Qatada -]

Do you know what they call that type of "science" in a courtroom? Hearsay.

Surprisingly, you don't have a history at all then. Nor does the nation which you live in.

 

[Jayda]

Surprisingly, you don't have a history at all then. Nor does the nation which you live in.

lol si,

but the question is whether our (internal) history is accurate. for about 200 years we were taught that we came here, peacefully settled and then the evil pagan 'injuns' started to kill us off, so we fought, won and continued expanding into the west. but in the last 50 years we've taken a look back on this, considered the native american accounts, consulted modern scientific archeological discoveries and a new picture is painted of opportunistic europeans (some of whom were good some of whom were bad) antagonizing the natives as much as they did us... and in some cases committing genocide upon them.

one cannot rely solely on their own historic record, it is inevitably filled with biases, fairytales and misinterpretations.

you face the same question... is your internal record accurate? i (and the other non muslims here) suggest that it is not... in light of everything else we know. by comparing jewish accounts of their own history, to your accounts of your own history (about jews), and by looking at what secular science has uncovered your record appears to be highly suspect - although not without its contributions to the bigger picture.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[- Qatada -]

Regarding the issue of the 'son of God' - let's see whether the Jews really did say son of God to anyone - according to the Old Testament.

"Sons of God" according to Judaism


In the Old Testament

In the Old Testament, the phrase "son(s) of God" has an unknown meaning: there are a number of later interpretations. Our translation most likely comes from the Septuagint, which uses the phrase "Uioi Tou Theou", "Sons of God", to translate it.[10]

• The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "sons of God", is seen by some to describe angels or immensely powerful human beings. The notion of the word as describing non-divine beings most likely comes from the Targumic Aramaic translation, which uses the phrases "sons of nobles", "Bnei Ravrevaya" in its translation. See Genesis 6:2-4 and Book of Job 1:6.
• It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King DavidPsalm 89:27, 28). and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp.
• Israel as a people is called God's "son", using the singular form (comp. Exodus 4: 22 and Hosea 11:1).

In Judaism the term "son of God" is not used in the sense of the expected "messiah" Psalm 2 refers to Solomon as both God's messiah (an anointed king) and like a son of God.
In the Jewish literature that was not finally accepted as part of the Hebrew Bible, but that many Christians do accept as Scripture (see Deuterocanonical books, there are passages in which the title "son of God" is given to the anointed person or Messiah (see Enoch, 55:2; IV Esdras 7:28-29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9). The title belongs also to any one whose piety has placed him in a filial relation to God (see Wisdom 2:13, 16, 18; 5:5, where "the sons of God" are identical with "the saints"; comp. Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] iv. 10).




It has been speculated that it was because of the frequent use of these books by the Early Christians in polemics with Jews, that the Sanhedrin at Yavneh rejected them around AD 80.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son_of_God#.22Sons_of_God.22_according_to_Judaism




​

Verses such as these are so apparent and clear when pious persons are referred to as 'sons of God' and God being referred to as 'father':

King James Bible 2 Samuel 7:14

I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:



Exodus 4:22-23 (King James Version)

22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

23And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.


​

Therefore, according to your own beliefs - you're own christian scholars would frequently use the OT to claim exactly what i am claiming, yet you choose to deny it right now, merely because some Jews did so.

So who's to say that the Jews of Medina never took these verses and because Ezra/Uzayr was a pious man - they also labelled him as 'the son of God'?



To be honest, this is the end of the discussion - if we don't have any common ground at all, then we won't get anywhere in the discussion. If you don't accept history from anyone who doesn't belong to your religion, then that's upto you - you're basically rejecting nearly all of history.






Regards.

 

[- Qatada -]

Jayda, if i'm to use the logic of the people i'm debating with - then that's all hearsy. I don't accept it i'm afraid.


Do you understand what i mean now?

 

[Jayda]

hola,

no, i'm sorry i do not understand what you mean...

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Jayda]

To be honest, this is the end of the discussion - if we don't have any common ground at all, then we won't get anywhere in the discussion. If you don't accept history from anyone who doesn't belong to your religion, then that's upto you - you're basically rejecting nearly all of history.


Regards.

hola Qatada,

that's misconstruing the issue. islamic history is not necessary to accurately chronical the history of all people everywhere, but it is useful in putting together a picture of islamic history. the subject we are discussing is not islamic history, it is jewish history.

for an accurate picture we need to balance islamic history with prestanding jewish accounts of their history and religion and what secular history tells us... especially since there will be a natural bias in the islamic account to justify the quran. there will be no such bias in jewish history since it predates islam, and there will not be any bias in secular history since it has no ideological slant.

in doing so (comparing the three) jewish and secular accounts demonstrate that the jews did not apply the title 'son of God' to Ezra... only the muslim account does this. so there is a huge discrepency... that's when you need to start asking questions... why is there this discrepency? well... consider the source, a person whom we cannot independently verify, who is attempting to validate his religion, so there is a motive.

do you have any explanation for the major discrepency between what jewish history and secular history have to say on the topic... with what islamic history has to say?

this account is simply not good evidence... it's one man who may have existed 1500 years ago against the entire body of history gathered by jews about themselves, and everything secular scholars were able to gather about them.

you are the one trying to convince us... if you feel like this is hopeless then we certainly accept that you don't want to participate in the conversation, nobody is forcing you. but it is unfair to give us bad evidence and then demand that there is something wrong with us for challenging its veracity (and relevancy) and ultimately not accepting it. at least give some consideration to why we do not accept what we have read so far from you.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[- Qatada -]

Jayda, any history - no matter what part of the world it comes from - the people who lived in that place at that time can only discuss the issue at hand.


If you are to look into the history of China, no matter how hard someone tries - it will be nearly impossible to get a Europeans or secular persons account of what really occurred there:

1) Partly because no secular European even lived there to mention this. Since the whole issue was an issue of internal affairs.

2) If one was to use your argument that we do not accept ones authenticity due to biases or cultural influence etc. then again - this means that WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY HISTORY WHATSOEVER? Since nearly all of history has been put forward this way. Yes, there is the help of scientific advances, yet this isn't sufficient as a means to preserve history in its totality. The story surrounding the scientific evidences is what helps these archaeologists figure out what actually happened within that location at that time period in history.



​

Besides, I've given you strong evidences from the OT itself. If you doubt the OT, then that is your own loss. It is clear from passages which i did quote that the pious people were referred to as 'Gods children' and this is exactly what Christianity is based on!

And similarly, it wouldn't be surprising if Jews interpreted their texts (yes, they have many sects with different interpretations also) in a way to label Uzayr/Ezra as a 'son of God' due to their utmost respect for him.




Using the points which i mentioned above, it becomes clear that the points discussed are valid. And that if you are to deny the history books which have narrations in, narrations which are supported by every narrator, along with his truthfulness etc. then we can rightly say that this did occur. If you doubt that - then yeah, we can finally conclude that you really don't have no history of your culture, your nation, nor even your religion.


If you say that the OT calls against monotheism, since it mentions 'son of God' many times - then you are in a paradox. Either you accept that son of God is mentioned in the OT, or you deny it and therefore deny your own, aswell as the Jewish scripture.






Regards.

 

[Grace Seeker]

My point is that you speak of a "science" of hadith. It isn't a science. There is no way to repeat the experiment and validate the results. It is history. And history is something that is always open to both interpretation and reinterpretation. One reason is that there is a lot of hearsay in history, all histories. Another is that even when dealing with concrete physical items be they shards of pottery from an archeaological dig or a letter that has been authenticated from the hand of Abraham Lincoln, that we are the ones who are assigning meaning to them and sometimes we assign those meanings incorrectly. And honest historian recognizes these weaknesses in the process, weakness which I am prepared to recognize in my interpretation of scripture, but which you do not seem to be preprared to recognize in your interpretation of passages even though you are attempting to do it in the light of a book (the Qur'an) written centuries after the fact and unrelated to the first (the Pentateuch) which you are trying to interpret.

 

[- Qatada -]

Quoting brother Ansar:

So as for what he quotes,

Notice the words "proposed" and "assumption". There are no records from any Jewish community that believed Ezra was the Son of God!

​

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium"absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, which we can refute with the expression, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!


Secondly, as was previously mentioned, there are specific historical narrations related by Qur'anic commentators like Al-Baydawi and At-Tabari which state the names of specific Jewish leaders who came forward to the Muslims and said "We cannot believe you since you do not accept Uzayr as the son of God". And notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believed Uzayr was the son of God, it says quite clearly that they said he was the son of God. So, the Qur'an was responding to an explicit proclamation of the Jews. Either the Jews were intentionally lying, or they actually believed what they said - but in any event the Qur'an can't be wrong since the Jews of Madinah actually said this.

http://www.islamicboard.com/893026-post123.html


​

So in debate, that isn't a valid enough argument - i.e. just because it isn't in Jewish records that it never occurred. It's like atheists telling us to prove that God exists, although He does - they cannot disprove that God exists, nor can we clearly without a doubt prove to them that God exists - since we believe in Him, although we cannot see Him, and it is upto them to take them steps to accept His existence.

Therefore the lack of certain records from a certain group isn't sufficient to disprove the historical event altogether, but if you deny the event based on denying the historical sources which do mention it - then again, this does not disprove that it occurred, it only proves that you disagree with the historical records which do mention it.

 

[YusufNoor]

Do you know what they call that type of "science" in a courtroom? Hearsay.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i'm SOO GLAD that you have come to our website to learn about Islam instead of just preaching your religion!

*exits sarcasm mode*

btw, do you know what they call anonymous, undocumented letters in "Christianity?" the gospel truth!

GO FIGURE!

 

[Jayda]

hola Qatada,

gracias for your continued interest in this conversation

Jayda, any history - no matter what part of the world it comes from - the people who lived in that place at that time can only discuss the issue at hand.

which defeats your point... you are demanding that we place what muslims thought and recorded of jews... over what jews thought and recorded of themselves.

If you are to look into the history of China, no matter how hard someone tries - it will be nearly impossible to get a Europeans or secular persons account of what really occurred there:

1) Partly because no secular European even lived there to mention this. Since the whole issue was an issue of internal affairs.​

very well. if we accept Chinese history without a 'fact check' from modern archaeology and from other sources (not necessarily western) then we accept as undisputed fact that after a period of ten thousand ten thousand years of rulership by primordial gods (the heavenly sovereign, the earthly sovereign and the human sovereign) a group of godmen came to rule china beginning with the 'yellow emperor' who came to power with a magic compass in 2697 and lived to 100 years before becomming immortal.

2) If one was to use your argument that we do not accept ones authenticity due to biases or cultural influence etc. then again - this means that WE CANNOT ACCEPT ANY HISTORY WHATSOEVER? Since nearly all of history has been put forward this way. Yes, there is the help of scientific advances, yet this isn't sufficient as a means to preserve history in its totality. The story surrounding the scientific evidences is what helps these archaeologists figure out what actually happened within that location at that time period in history.

you misunderstand me. we must accept that a community's biases will be a natural part of their history. that is why their history must be taken into account alongside other recorded histories and what the record we can uncover using modern techniques reveals. this provides a fuller, clearer picture devoid of some of the biases and nonsense.

Besides, I've given you strong evidences from the OT itself. If you doubt the OT, then that is your own loss. It is clear from passages which i did quote that the pious people were referred to as 'Gods children' and this is exactly what Christianity is based on!

no... you've given me your interpretation of the OT, a non Christian one, no less.

the Jews did apply the term 'Son of God' to various people in the OT, including King David... it is a variation of the term 'annointed' in that context. however it was used in an entirely different manner than the term applied to Christ (obviously, since He was tried for blasphemy). my intuition is that the quran understands the difference... and when it accused the Jews of calling Ezra 'the son of God' the author of the quran meant 'in the same sense as the Christians,' i have that intuition because the quran speaks of both in the same breath. is this not reasonable?

regardless, your quotes from the bible are irrelevant. none of them is about Jews calling prophet Ezra the Son of God. ask a jewish person why that would be peculiar... they will tell you it is because he wasn't David.

And similarly, it wouldn't be surprising if Jews interpreted their texts (yes, they have many sects with different interpretations also) in a way to label Uzayr/Ezra as a 'son of God' due to their utmost respect for him.

okay... but what surprises you or does not surprise you isn't evidence... it's restating the islamic opinion.

Using the points which i mentioned above, it becomes clear that the points discussed are valid. And that if you are to deny the history books which have narrations in, narrations which are supported by every narrator, along with his truthfulness etc. then we can rightly say that this did occur. If you doubt that - then yeah, we can finally conclude that you really don't have no history of your culture, your nation, nor even your religion.

you misunderstand my point. reread my response to your question about China and see the obvious parallel to islamic history. i'm not a nihilist, traditional cultures' histories have their place, especially when they are talking about their own culture (however in this case it is a muslims perspective of Jews, and you are disregarding the Jewish account of Jewish history).

i'm not going to accept islamic history with no strings attached simply because it's muslim. there are legitimate questions regarding the veracity of this information, in light of Jewish history and in light of what secular science has given us.

If you say that the OT calls against monotheism, since it mentions 'son of God' many times - then you are in a paradox. Either you accept that son of God is mentioned in the OT, or you deny it and therefore deny your own, aswell as the Jewish scripture.

Regards.

si, and so it does. but i have already explained the way it is used in different contexts, feel free to explore the issue further with wikipedia. the question is not whether 'people have been called Son of God' before, but whether Ezra was called 'Son of God.' specifically if he was called 'Son of God' in a blasphemous context (since it means different things in different situations). you haven't demonstrated that.

to remind you, we are talking about jewish history and not Christian theology. if you can find an example in the Bible of Ezra being called 'the Son of God' in the same sense as the NT by all means bring it to my attention.

que Dios te bendiga​

 

[Jayda]

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i'm SOO GLAD that you have come to our website to learn about Islam instead of just preaching your religion!

*exits sarcasm mode*

btw, do you know what they call anonymous, undocumented letters in "Christianity?" the gospel truth!

GO FIGURE!

if you are so insistent that we do not talk about christianity why provoke us with off topic conversations about apostolic letters and christian theology? the conversation is about jewish history, please join the conversation or if you wish to instigate an argument on a different matter, declare war the usual way... with an obnoxious and provocative thread title.

 

[snakelegs]

i can see that muslims must believe that the jews called uzair son of god - because it says so in the qur'an and the qur'an is the word of God. okay.
but what i take issue with is using that as a basis to deny that judaism is monotheistic.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Did you know that Muslims say that worship of Jesus is the same as worship of Allah? Sure you will no doubt call this shirk, but I can still prove this statement to be true.

See, I have some friends who are Muslims. Out of respect for them I would occassionally attend prayers at the Mosque with them. The Iman invited me to join with the men, alongside them, in the actual prayers, and I did. Later, simply as observers, they attended services with me at the church I attended. They respectfully stood and sat at times the congregation stood and sat, but they did not sing the hymns nor receive communion. We shared these experiences several times. Then on one of our last occassions to be together before I moved from the area, we attended a Christian rally in which it was a much more modern type of celebration. Interestingly they very much enjoyed the music, joined in dancing in the aisles with the other youth and when, at the end of the service, people were given the opportunity to receive a cross as part of a sending forth ceremony, they joined in that as well, both receiving and then continuing to wear the cross. I knew they had enough knowledge to understand the symbolism, and asked them about it, and here is the answer that they shared with me: "We all worship God, there is just one God whether we are Christian or Muslims, you worship Jesus and we worship Allah, but it is all the same thing."


Earlier you were strong to join Ansar Al-'Adl in making the point that

originally posted by Ansar Al-Adl
Qur'anic commentators like Al-Baydawi and At-Tabari...state the names of specific Jewish leaders who came forward to the Muslims and said "We cannot believe you since you do not accept Uzayr as the son of God". And notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believed Uzayr was the son of God, it says quite clearly that they said he was the son of God. So, the Qur'an was responding to an explicit proclamation of the Jews. Either the Jews were intentionally lying, or they actually believed what they said - but in any event the Qur'an can't be wrong since the Jews of Madinah actually said this.

Well, if the Qur'an is not wrong since, by your assertions, there were some Jews who actually said such a thing, then I am not wrong in my statement above --declaring that Muslims say that worship of Jesus is the same as worship of Allah-- because there were some Muslims who on one occassion actually said such a thing. The thing is I know that it is not Muslim theology and that any such statement is an aberation. Therefore, I will not make such a brash statement implying that it is representative of Islam. But when your brother in Islam, Shakoor, asks a relatively simple question:

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

Rather than agree with those who previously posted that Judaism does not teach this (at least it doesn't teach this anymore than Islam teaches that worship of Allah and worship of Jesus are all the same), you respond with trying to show some event where it is reported that some Jews may have said such a thing and defend it as if it were truly representative of Jewish teaching.

Not that I expect you to care, but, in my opinion you do a disservice to Shakoor in not giving him a straight answer, and show lack of integrity in raising this issue about the supposed statements of the Jews in Madinah which is not relevant to Shakoor's overall question, especially given that Shakoor himself expressed knowledge of the surah in question has that was what motivated him to ask his question seeking for more general knowledge about Judaism to begin with.

 

[Jayda]

i can see that muslims must believe that the jews called uzair son of god - because it says so in the qur'an and the qur'an is the word of God. okay.
but what i take issue with is using that as a basis to deny that judaism is monotheistic.

i'm concerned that the above (bold) fates the conversation

 

[snakelegs]

i'm concerned that the above (bold) fates the conversation

yes, it does. because if the qur'an is the word of God, it must be the truth.
it is as simple as that. so there really isn't room for argument.
but it is still a leap from that to conclude that jews are not monotheists. this is the part i have a problem with. jews are just as strongly monotheistic as muslims.